11–20 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but saying just "congress" implies both chambers passed it
Not necessarily. In the US traditionally the House Reps are referred to as congressmen (unlike the rest of the world) and the Senate, senators. So sometimes Congress is shorthand for the House. Though I agree it shouldn’t be.
[flagged]
[flagged]
The author, Joe Mullin, is a policy analyst: https://www.eff.org/about/staff/joe-mullin >. He's been working in that capacity with the EFF since at least 2018: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/ipr-process-saves-80-c... >. Your further objections are ... facile.
[flagged]
[flagged]
The author, Joe Mullin, is a policy analyst: https://www.eff.org/about/staff/joe-mullin >. He's been working in that capacity with the EFF since at least 2018: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/ipr-process-saves-80-c... >. Your further objections are ... facile.
[flagged]
That is a rather narrow definition of checks and balances. The term can be applied to any group of organizations where each organization has power and interest to limit the power of the others.
I don't really understand the hypothetical problems here. "The copyright office head would be a presidential appointee, which could make the copyright office more political". I mean, I guess? Are people worried they're going to start selectively enforcing copyright law? But they don't enforce copyright law right now...